It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash According to ATC Radar

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


TA, oh come on!

Every part is different!! Some parts will be cast, with numbers. But, other units will have the black and silver metal data plate...whether riveted on, or glued on. Go ask a real aircraft mechanic!

Also, since this is about whether the UAL93 was still airborne for three minutes longer than originally believed, you should also ask the mechanic about 'faking' the DFDR. Also, we should investigate the chain of custody of the units after they were dug out of the ground.

Also, we should attempt to reconcile the fact that another airplane in the vicinity, a Bizjet, was able to visually identify the UAL B757 at about 8,000 feet MSL just before the crash. There is an ATC transcript of this. The pilot of the other airplane even gives the controller his phone number! (A 973 area code, that's in NJ).

So, we have a visual sighting of a B757 with UAL livery in the vicinity of Shanksville at about 8,000 feet just before the end of the DFDR and CVR recordings, as verified on the ATC transcripts from the sector facilities.

Even the 'believers' in a Government conspiracy/cover-up seem to disagree...some say NO PLANE, some say SHOT DOWN. Some say it safely landed in CLE, based merely on the statement made by the Mayor of CLE, who likely misspoke in the heat of the confusion.

Well, since the ATC radar had a primary target, and the other pilot had a visual, looks like there WAS a B757 in UAL colors. As to a shoot-down, where was the fighter? WHY didn't the controller see it? Military jets don't fly willy-nilly through public airspace without contacting ATC. SOMEBODY would have been in contact with a fighter. And, finally, IF a shoot-down, then the Flight Recorders likely would have stopped working BEFORE impact with the ground, as the electrical systems were disrupted.

(See, for example, SwissAir 111 and KAL 007). SwissAir lost electrical power do to an electrical fire inflight, and of course, KAL was shot down.

Finally, the aerial view of the crash site shows a larger area than the iconic photo of a mound of dirt and a red volunteer fire truck that keeps popping up as "Proof"!!





[edit on 5/9/0909 by weedwhacker]




posted on May, 9 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Nelson's opinion arises again. A man who wasnt at ANY of the sites on 9/11, nor did he participate in the clean-up or investigation. Not to mention, he ignores anything that does not fit into his opinion.....not real credible.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Also, we should investigate the chain of custody of the units after they were dug out of the ground.

Without proper chain of custody, the evidence is worthless.

Swampfox agrees. Take a look in this thread to see where Swampfox discounts evidence due to no custody chain.

Similarly, the black boxes (cough, dug out of the spongy Earth, cough) are worthless unless they can be proven to belong to the alleged UA93.



Also, we should attempt to reconcile the fact that another airplane in the vicinity, a Bizjet, was able to visually identify the UAL B757 at about 8,000 feet MSL just before the crash.
While that may be so, was the pilot able to identify the UA plane by its tail registration number or just the colour scheme?



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


TA, oh come on!

Every part is different!! Some parts will be cast, with numbers. But, other units will have the black and silver metal data plate...whether riveted on, or glued on. Go ask a real aircraft mechanic!


Yeah but that's not what you said in your other post. You said nothing about cast part numbers, because it didn't suit your argument at the time, hoping no one would remember that little video. Well I do remember that little video of the Boeing aircraft part. In fact, your omission of that fact, and now subsequent admission of this is not appreciated. Tell it like it is man. Tell the fricken truth.

I am not the sharpest blade in the drawer around here, but I am not the dullest either. I've been at this since 2004. You tried to pull the wool over people's eyes with that last post about part numbers. NO, they would not all have vaporized. Surely there is something like that somewhere from all the crash sites to conclusively identify the planes.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Well ya know, I'm not the airline mechanic. Based on the shape of that little piece o'metal with embossed numbers, I'd guess it may have been a brake part (a portion of one). Pure guess: How about an airline mechanic look it up for us??

In my years the majority of items I saw had the data plates. Rotable items, time-limited, etc. A part that is a brake puck, or a control surface counterweight, or whatever MAY have an embossed Part No., but no S/N.

Been huntiing a bit, stumbled on a debate from a few months ago, Challenge Match: ThroatYogurt vs. ULTIMA1.
Moderated by Memory Shock.

Odd, both TY and ULT are now banned. Perhaps they've returned under the guise of diff names?? No matter, if you haven't seen it, should read.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


I guess I should go back and edit my post and list all the reasons why I suspect those photos arent genuine...cause appearantly you have fixated on the subject.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I guess I should go back and edit my post and list all the reasons why I suspect those photos arent genuine...cause appearantly you have fixated on the subject.
Not at all, Swampfox! No need!

I agree with you. There should be chain of custody for any claims being made.

We might as well start with the complete chain of custody for the alleged black boxes found from the alleged Flight UA93 that were allegedly *cough* dug out of the spongy, soft earth *cough, cough*.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
I'm going to end my participation in this ridiculous thread by clearly stating that all of the RECORDED evidence combined with the crash scene evidence analyzed as a whole indicates that UA 93 indeed crashed at the site where all of the final reports indicate that it did.

Does anyone else remember this statement from back on page 2?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It reminds me of moths and a porch light or something. Simply fascinating to watch though.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I agree with you. There should be chain of custody for any claims being made.

We might as well start with the complete chain of custody for the alleged black boxes found from the alleged Flight UA93 that were allegedly *cough* dug out of the spongy, soft earth *cough, cough*.


Seconded, tezz.


FAA Withholds Pre-9/11 ID Confirming Aircraft Serial Number Data Of 9/11 Planes
Aidan Monaghan

A Freedom of Information Act request of the Federal Aviation Administration, seeking the last known serial number data of aircraft components contained by the aircraft used to carry out the 9/11 attacks, that are known to have been collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Transportation Safety Board from all 3 9/11 plane crash scenes, has been denied. ...


www.v911t.org...

[edit on 10-5-2009 by rhunter]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   


Around 4:50 p.m. on September 13, investigators discover the flight data recorder from Flight 93, one of the plane’s two “black boxes.” It is buried about 15 feet down in the main crater at the crash site, near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Around 8:25 p.m. the following evening, the other ‘black box’—the plane’s cockpit voice recorder—is found about 25 feet below ground in roughly the same spot.

The flight data recorder monitors airplane functions like its speed and altitude, while the cockpit voice recorder picks up conversations in the plane’s cockpit. Both are mounted in a plane’s tail. They are encased in very strong materials, like titanium, and insulated so as to withstand a crash impact.

History Commons UA93 events




posted by Orion7911

If you or anyone believes the lie that UA93 and its blackbox somehow was able to bury itself 25 feet underground, then its a great time for the shanksville challenge.




The Self-Sealing Aircraft Grave At Shanksville

Hoodwinked at Shanksville: The Boeing 757 Challenge



If both Flight Recorders (black boxes) were originally located next to each other in the tail, then how did one get buried at 15 feet in the soft dirt, and the other at 25 feet? Were they planted by the same people who planted this rusty old engine piece?




posted on May, 10 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressmeGlad you brought up the Air Force. I don’t know if you are just unable to be honest about your background or what. The system in place for investigating Air Force/ Military aviation crashes is entirely, and I mean entirely different from civil/commercial investigations.


Well, I see others are going back through this thread to find reasons to keep it off topic, so I went looking too and just noticed this.

If AF/Military aviation crash investigations are so vastly different from civil/commercial investigations then why did you waste bandwidth and everyone's time by posting Col. GEORGE NELSON'S OPINION? After all, his experience is based purely on his Air Force training and experience!

Seems to me, since that's all you have Nelson's opinion is not valid. Therefore, you have ZERO/ZIP/NADA evidence that an aircraft's serial numbered parts are a requirement to prove a crashed aircraft's identification by either the NTSB or the FBI.

Anyone is welcome to find and post that requirement as proven by any regulation/instruction/protocol as this has been a blatant FAILURE by impressme, so far.

BTW, I'm not impressed by this FAILURE, so don't ask me to research it for you again by posting Web Site addresses. The SPECIFIC SOURCE and quote will be fine.

ETA: Anyone is free at any time to address my refutation and proof that the conclusions stated in the OP are wrong....

[edit on 10-5-2009 by Reheat]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   

posted by Reheat

If AF/Military aviation crash investigations are so vastly different from civil/commercial investigations then why did you waste bandwidth and everyone's time by posting Col. GEORGE NELSON'S OPINION? After all, his experience is based purely on his Air Force training and experience!

Seems to me, since that's all you have Nelson's opinion is not valid. Therefore, you have ZERO/ZIP/NADA evidence that an aircraft's serial numbered parts are a requirement to prove a crashed aircraft's identification by either the NTSB or the FBI.



Did you just forget to post the statements by other USAF Qualified Aircraft Investigators who don't agree with Col. Nelson? Or couldn't you find any? Should I ask the aircraft crash investigators over at Pilots For 9/11 Truth to help you out?


posted by Reheat

Oh, I've seen Nelson's stuff before. He is correct until he gets into his "truther" motivated crap regarding aircraft identification.

I can produce statements by other USAF Qualified Aircraft Investigators who don't agree with Col. Nelson.



So you agree with a lot of Colonel Nelson's analysis? And since the alleged Flight 93 was flying past the teensey hole in the ground and miles beyond Indian Lake, shouldn't we be wary of disinformation put out by the Bush Regime and you?


VIDEO DOCUMENTS HOW FLIGHT 93 DID NOT CRASH IN SHANKSVILLE BUT CONTINUED ON FLYING SOUTHEAST OVER INDIAN LAKE MILES PAST THE CRASH SITE



9/11 : FLIGHT 93 SHANKSVILLE FLYOVER INDIAN LAKE




Aircraft Parts and the Precautionary Principle
Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True:
Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity

by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)

The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised. As I will show below, it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.

United Airlines Flight 93

This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.

Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.

American Airlines Flight 11

This flight was reported by the government to be a Boeing 767, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including five Arabs who had hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings.

Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.

United Airlines Flight 175

This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.

Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.

American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.

www.physics911.net...




[edit on 5/10/09 by SPreston]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPrestonDid you just forget to post the statements by other USAF Qualified Aircraft Investigators who don't agree with Col. Nelson? Or couldn't you find any? Should I ask the aircraft crash investigators over at Pilots For 9/11 Truth to help you out?


Oh, I didn't forget at all, it's unnecessary.

You can use anyone you want to help find the information. Just post a direct link to specifics in a Regulatory Document that specifies that part serial numbers are required to identify an aircraft that crashed.

As Bart might say "I don't need no stinkin' truther opinion".

George Nelson explained and I've explained why serial part numbers are generally collected by the AF and the NTSB. You only "cherry pick" his truthism embellishment implications to support your delusions.

Come on, don't be shy. Show us in a Government Document (be careful they might bite you) why part numbers are collected and show us where they are required for aircraft identification.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by Reheat]



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
This thread is floating away into history, but before it goes there is some unfinished business here.

TrueAmerican - you stated that you are honest. Well, since I've proven the OP to be a false conclusion, how 'bout you admit as such? That's the honest thing to do!

And an OT ancillary has also been proven. The part serial number garbage so often quoted by truthers has also been proven to be a non-issue. In fact, that not only applies to you, but to all of the others who have tried to derail this thread by bringing it up. That list includes, but is not limited to "impressme" and SPreston. No one seems to be able to produce the Documentation to prove part serial numbers are required for a crashed aircraft's identification because IT DOES NOT EXIST.

Your hero who authored the article has only replied with a "personal attack" and an incredulity fallacy. Isn't it strange that he had no substantial reply to a "SLAM DUNK" refutation of his garbage.

Since that article is still posted on his Web Site with no corrections, that CONSTITUTES INTENTION DECEPTION. In other word it is now an implied LIE, which is his standard fare.

And you wonder why no one listens, except a gullible few.......



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


You have proven nothing.

And we do not jump for you and play your silly games as you attempt to set the rules.

Go back on hiatus Reheat and take your strawman nonsense with you.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Please, don't confuse me with your MATTRESS o' factless one!



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
TrueAmerican - you stated that you are honest. Well, since I've proven the OP to be a false conclusion, how 'bout you admit as such? That's the honest thing to do!


You've proven that to yourself maybe, but not to me. And you still haven't been over to P4T to debate Rob, Domenick, and the rest of them on this subject, when I took the time to post Rob's invitation to you to do so.
If you are so sure of yourself, then why do you not go there and finish this? He said you are not banned.


And an OT ancillary has also been proven. The part serial number garbage so often quoted by truthers has also been proven to be a non-issue. In fact, that not only applies to you, but to all of the others who have tried to derail this thread by bringing it up. That list includes, but is not limited to "impressme" and SPreston. No one seems to be able to produce the Documentation to prove part serial numbers are required for a crashed aircraft's identification because IT DOES NOT EXIST.


You've been spewing a lot of BS here man. First of all, the FBI took jurisdiction of the case because it was a criminal case, yes, but you failed to mention that the FBI also turned right around and engaged the NTSB to analyze the FDR data. Why? Because the NTSB is the agency that has the equipment to do so. So the NTSB was very involved with this from the beginning- but they were limited to the FDRs supplied- by the FBI.

But a major issue that you also failed to mention is that the FBI provided the NTSB with the FDR, and very suspiciously, the fricken FDR serial numbers were missing. In fact, as it turns out, this is the only time in the history of digital FDR investigations that the NTSB did not have the serial numbers of the FDRs to identify the planes. And identifying the plane comes about as a byproduct of having the FDR serial numbers, which they cross reference against manufacturer supplied plane information. Usually not a problem. It is indeed in their protocol normally as standard in all other investigations done on digital FDR's, with the possible exception of one other case. And it makes absolute sense that it would be: otherwise, how would they ever know that it was the correct FDR?
Sheesh.

Well in this case, a FOIA request was filed to that exact effect: to obtain the serial numbers of the FDRs of all the planes, so that they could be crossed checked. And guess what: IT WAS DENIED for no good reason. A subsequent review of precedent case law for such a denial was never able to be found, and still has the filing parties, as well as the rest of the aviation world baffled as to why this FOIA request was denied. No one knows, and the government ain't talking...

A further study of how the information is read and then transferred from the FDR reveals that it is transferred over to a hard drive in digital format- that's right, in 0's and 1's, and then extracted with special software. The potential for falsifying this information is there- both from the NTSB AND the FBI once they received it in digital format. My guess is that if any data manipulation took place, that it happened at, or at the hands of, the FBI.

I can say from personal experience that all of the people I met at the NTSB were extremely polite, methodical, thorough, and from what I saw- quite professional at what they do. How do I know this? Because back in the 90's there was a major auto accident, and I happened to run audio for a week long investigative hearing they did on it. I heard everything from start to finish, and there were several department heads there, including the director. It was a very bad accident.


Your hero who authored the article has only replied with a "personal attack" and an incredulity fallacy. Isn't it strange that he had no substantial reply to a "SLAM DUNK" refutation of his garbage.


If it is so slammin, then why aren't you over there slammin it in their face? For whatever reason, Domenick said he was banned from ATS. I don't know about Rob. And apparently the same at the place you posted your rebuttal. So they cannot respond there. So how about quitting arguing here and going over there with your slams. They got a dunking hoop for ya. Or are you afraid you'll come up a bit short on points?



Since that article is still posted on his Web Site with no corrections, that CONSTITUTES INTENTION DECEPTION. In other word it is now an implied LIE, which is his standard fare.


NO it does not. They are waiting. See ya there.


And you wonder why no one listens, except a gullible few.......


The only thing I am wondering at the moment is why I continue to keep you off ignore, when you are clearly too afraid to go over there and put your slam dunk on the table in front of a host of international pilots who know what every last one of those parameters mean off that FDR. Put up or just shut it.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican


So much for the honesty statement. I actually expected as much. And you wonder why you have accomplished NOTHING in almost 8 years.

It not my fault that the people you reference and who post at p4t have been banned (multiple times) from most sites on the Internet to include here. In fact, your hero has been banned so many times from multiple Internet sites under so many socks that even he doesn't know them all.

I actually could have and likely should have just posted my refutation on one of the primary sane 9/11 related site instead of making myself available here. Now, you want ME to add some dignity and credibility to a group of terrorist apologists who are more interested in selling DVDs and barbecue aprons along with T-Shirts and hats than telling the TRUTH. Sure, I'll do that in about 1000 years.

Apparently, you are unaware that there are perhaps 2-3 actual Pilots who post at the p4t Forum. That might even be a stretch. Otherwise, there is no one there qualified to discuss the issues related to the OP. And you expect me to go there and bicker with delusional terrorist apologists?

You might have a point on the FDR, if you can explain in detail how a DIGITAL device can be faked to include approximately 25 hours of previous flights. You need to also explain why RADAR from multiple sites, ATC communications tapes, and an airborne witness' statement ALL AGREE with the FDR.

I am not interested in playing silly Internet argument games. My interest is to add some sanity, knowledge, and common sense to this insane bickering. I see that is futile, so I'll move along as I please.

Oh, I'll be back when there is something I find interesting and is within my area of expertise (that include this thread). In the meantime, please continue with your futile games and wasted life. It is your own to spend as you choose.....

[edit on 12-5-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 12-5-2009 by Reheat]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
The crash site was there in 1994 so.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Just answer two things Mr. Reheat:

Do you believe UA93 drove itself into the ground 165 feet as suggested by
the photo of the crater?

Do you also believe that digging down about 4 feet would uncover just
a rotor of an engine, but no tail section, or wing, or seats?

Cuz ya know, they are also part of the aircraft...and should be closer to
the surface and more apparent than the rotor itself.

Just let me know what you think so I can reply with the required amount
of laughing icons.




[edit on 12-5-2009 by turbofan]

[edit on 12-5-2009 by turbofan]




top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join